Key Concepts in Public Archaeology

Key Concepts in Public Archaeology

Key Concepts in Public Archaeology

Edited by Gabriel Moshenska

First published in 2017 by

UCL Press

University College London

Gower Street

London WC1E 6BT

Available to download free: www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-press

Text © Contributors, 2017

Images © Contributors and copyright holders named in captions, 2017

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library.

This book is published under a Creative Commons 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the work and to make commercial use of the work providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information:

Gabriel Moshenska (ed.), Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London, UCL Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781911576419

Further details about Creative Commons licenses are available at

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

ISBN: 978–1–911576–44–0 (Hbk.)

ISBN: 978–1–911576–43–3 (Pbk.)

ISBN: 978–1–911576–41–9 (PDF)

ISBN: 978–1–911576–40–2 (epub)

ISBN: 978–1–911576–42–6 (mobi)

ISBN: 978–1–787350–78–6 (html)

ISBN: 978–1–911307–71–6 (Apple app)

ISBN: 978–1–911307–72–3 (Android app)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781911576419

This publication was made possible by funding from Jisc as part of the ‘Institution as e-textbook publisher’ project:

https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/institution-as-e-textbook-publisher.

This book is dedicated to Tim Schadla-Hall who has led the teaching and study of public archaeology at UCL for two decades, and inspired and supported a generation of public archaeologists.

Acknowledgements

This book has been a long time in the making, and I must first express my thanks to everybody involved for their formidable patience. The collection of papers originates in the MA Public Archaeology at UCL, devised and taught over many years by Tim Schadla-Hall and others. Most of the contributors to this volume have taught on the MA course and several are graduates, while others carried out doctoral research within what is becoming known as the ‘London school’ of public archaeology. This is the appropriate place to acknowledge the leadership and vision of the late Peter Ucko, whose understanding of archaeology as a politically engaged practice entangled in everyday life gave rise to the teaching programme in public archaeology at UCL Institute of Archaeology at both undergraduate and graduate level, as well as the creation of the journal Public Archaeology, still hosted in that department. The Ucko tradition of public archaeology as both scholarship and practice has been maintained over the last two decades by Tim Schadla-Hall, Neal Ascherson, Nick Merriman, Ulrike Sommer, Andrew Reid and many others in the Institute of Archaeology, and continues to this day. The publication of this volume has been guided with great patience and vision by Lara Speicher of UCL Press and her colleagues and I am grateful for their faith in the project. Public archaeology is founded upon the belief in breaking down divisions between professionals or academics and the wider world: UCL Press’ commitment to Open Access publishing is a beacon in this broader campaign to share knowledge freely beyond the pay-walls and prohibitive prices of traditional elite academic publishing. Finally, my thanks to Maria Phelan and my family who have endured my moaning about this book for too long.

Funding for this publication was provided by Jisc as part of the ‘Institution as e-textbook publisher project’.

Contents

List of figures and tables

Notes on contributors

1.Introduction: public archaeology as practice and scholarship where archaeology meets the world

Gabriel Moshenska

2.Community archaeology

Suzie Thomas

3.Economics in public archaeology

Paul Burtenshaw

4.Archaeology and education

Don Henson

5.Digital media in public archaeology

Chiara Bonacchi

6.Presenting archaeological sites to the public

Reuben Grima

7.The archaeological profession and human rights

Samuel Hardy

8.The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales

Roger Bland, Michael Lewis, Daniel Pett, Ian Richardson, Katherine Robbins and Rob Webley

9.Alternative archaeologies

Gabriel Moshenska

10.Commercial archaeology in the UK: public interest, benefit and engagement

Hilary Orange, Dominic Perring

11.Archaeologists in popular culture

Gabriel Moshenska

12.Archaeology and nationalism

Ulrike Sommer

13.The market for ancient art

David W.J. Gill

References

Index

List of figures and tables

Figures

1.1Some common types of public archaeology

2.1Children from New Zion Temple church in Freedmen’s Town, Houston, learning to screen artefacts with university field-school students

2.2Revealing the new information panel of a dry stone wall in Pispala, 2013

2.3‘Fishtank’ archaeology at Camden YAC Branch, London

2.42011–12 Community Archaeology Training Placement beneficiary Hannah Baxter (standing, in hat) with participants at Heeley City Farm, Sheffield

2.5Participants Martin and Liam recording a Rainford building in July 2013

6.1Footpath leading to Grotta del Genovese, Levanzo, Egadi Islands

6.2Villa del Tellaro, south-east Sicily

6.3Valadier’s early nineteenth-century restoration of the Colosseum in Rome

6.4A young visitor being introduced to archery in the courtyard of Bolton Castle, Yorkshire

8.1Finds reported as Treasure Trove (1988–97) and Treasure (since 1997)

8.2Numbers of finds recorded on http://finds.org.uk

10.1Visitors to an open day being shown the post-built Saxon building

10.2The capstone in position hovering over uprights on Midsummer Day 2014

12.1Consecutive migrations into Europe from the East, according to J. Grimm (1846)

12.2The seven Hungarian Chieftains, Millenium Monument, by Albert Schickedanz and György Zala 1898–1927, Hősök tere (Place of Heroes), Budapest

12.3Possible reconstructions of the Obermeilen pile dwellings, based on ethnographic analogies (Keller 1854)

12.4Kossinna, Weichselland (1919). The publication claims that the Vistula area (Polish since the Versailles treaty of 1919) is ‘age-old Germanic homesoil’. The illustration shows Bronze Age settlers working the fields and migrating further east

12.5Vichy 1 franc coin, 1944. The obverse bears the motto of the Petain-regime, ‘work, family, fatherland’; the reverse shows the double axe of the Gaulish king Vercingetorix between two wheatsheaves

Tables

4.1Archaeological correlations with Gardner’s multiple intelligences

4.2Archaeological knowledge of the past

4.3Archaeological knowledge related to the present

4.4Archaeological enquiry skills

5.1Types of research strategy

12.1Typical pattern of origin myths, with the Romans, Mexica, Hebrews and Lombards as examples

Notes on contributors

Roger Bland was formerly Keeper of the Departments of Prehistory and Europe and Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum.

Chiara Bonacchi is Co-Investigator Researcher at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL. Her research and teaching are in the areas of public archaeology and digital heritage. She has worked on projects in the UK, Europe, the Middle East and America, and is Coordinator of the UCL Archaeology, Media and Communication Research Network.

Paul Burtenshaw received his PhD from the Institute of Archaeology, UCL. He has carried out economic impact and value assessments in Scotland and Jordan, and was a Research Fellow at the Council of British Research in the Levant, Amman, Jordan. He is now Director, Projects at the Sustainable Preservation Initiative.

David Gill is Professor of Archaeological Heritage and Director of Heritage Futures at the University of Suffolk.

Reuben Grima is a senior lecturer in the Department of Conservation and Built Heritage at the University of Malta, where he lectures in cultural heritage management.

Samuel Hardy is Adjunct Professor at the American University of Rome (AUR) and Honorary Research Associate at the UCL Institute of Archaeology. He focuses on the trafficking of antiquities from Cyprus and Syria, the history of conflict antiquities trafficking around the world, and open-source analysis of illicit trade.

Don Henson is an archaeologist who originally specialised in the study of prehistoric flint tools but eventually saw the light and moved into public archaeology and heritage education. He is now researching the narratives we create about prehistory, and realises the past is too important to be left to archaeologists.

Michael Lewis is Head of Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum and has worked as part of the Portable Antiquities Scheme since 2000, first as Finds Liaison Officer for Kent. He is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and a Member of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.

Gabriel Moshenska is Senior Lecturer in Public Archaeology at UCL Institute of Archaeology, where he researches and teaches across a range of topics including the history of archaeology, the public understanding of the past, and the archaeology and heritage of modern conflict.

Daniel Pett is Senior Digital Humanities Manager at the British Museum, responsible for the Museum’s digital activity in the research arena. He was the architect of the Portable Antiquities database for twelve years, a system which has been the foundation upon which the Portable Antiquities Scheme is built.

Ian Richardson is the Treasure Registrar in the department of Learning and National Partnerships at the British Museum. He heads a team which administers finds reported under the Treasure Act, facilitating their acquisition by public collections. He is an Associate of the Museums Association.

Katherine Robbins held a Leverhulme-funded post-doctoral fellowship at the British Museum working with the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Suzie Thomas is University Lecturer in Museum Studies at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She has a PhD in Heritage Studies from Newcastle University (UK) and has previously worked as Community Archaeology Support Officer for the Council for British Archaeology. She is co-editor of the Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage.

Rob Webley is a part-time doctoral student in Archaeology at the University of York. His thesis considers non-ferrous metalwork in the period around the Norman Conquest to examine changes and continuities, and their causes and effects. He is also a part-time Project Officer at the British Museum training Portable Antiquities Scheme volunteers.

Hilary Orange is a post-doctoral researcher at Ruhr-Universität Bochum studying post-industrial heritage. Her research interests include the archaeology of the contemporary world, industrial and post-industrial archaeology, heritage studies, and studies of landscape and memory.

Dominic Perring is Director of the Centre for Applied Archaeology at UCL Institute of Archaeology and of Archaeology South East.

Ulrike Sommer is Senior Lecturer in Prehistoric Archaeology at UCL Institute of Archaeology. Her research interests include the European Neolithic and the history of archaeology.

1

Introduction: public archaeology as practice and scholarship where archaeology meets the world

Gabriel Moshenska

Public archaeology is all the New Territories, lying around the periphery of direct research into the remains of material culture … All of them are about the problems which arise when archaeology moves into the real world of economic conflicts and political struggle. In other words, they are about ethics.

(Ascherson 2000: 2)

any area of archaeological activity that interacted or had the potential to interact with the public – the vast majority of whom, for a variety of reasons, know little about archaeology as an academic subject.

(Schadla-Hall 1999: 147)

it studies the processes and outcomes whereby the discipline of archaeology becomes part of a wider public culture, where contestation and dissonance are inevitable. In being about ethics and identity, therefore, public archaeology is inevitably about negotiation and conflict over meaning.

(Merriman 2004: 5)

public archaeology in the broadest sense is that part of the discipline concerned with studying and critiquing the processes of production and consumption of archaeological commodities.

(Moshenska 2009a: 47)

a subject that examines the relationship between archaeology and the public, and then seeks to improve it

(Matsuda and Okamura 2011: 4)

The aim of this book is to give the reader an overview of study and practice in the field of public archaeology. It offers a series of snapshots of important ideas and areas of work brought together as an introduction, albeit an inevitably brief and incomplete one, to one of the most challenging and rewarding parts of the wider archaeological discipline. Read the book from cover to cover and you will have a good working understanding of public archaeology as a complicated, rich and diverse field, as well as knowledge of some of the most significant and iconic examples of public archaeology in action. Dip into a specific chapter and you will find a concise and insightful introduction to one aspect of public archaeology with case studies and a list of readings to develop your understanding. However you use this book I am confident that you will emerge with a better understanding of what public archaeology is, why it matters and what you can do about it. First, it is necessary and useful, drawing on the quotes above, to ask what we mean by public archaeology, and to examine some of the different ways it has been defined.

The archaeologist and television personality Sir Mortimer Wheeler, one of the first prominent public archaeologists, stated

I was, and am, convinced of the moral and academic necessity of sharing scientific work to the fullest possible extent with the man in the street and in the field.

(1955: 104)

and that

It is the duty of the archaeologist, as of the scientist, to reach and impress the public, and to mould his words in the common clay of its forthright understanding.

(1956: 224)

Wheeler was an eloquent promoter of the ideals of public archaeology, but he was by no means the first or the only archaeologist of his time to look beyond the material remains of the past to consider the place of archaeology in the world (Moshenska and Schadla-Hall 2011). Public archaeology has remained at the core of archaeology throughout its history and into the present, touching upon every aspect of the discipline worldwide. Public archaeology straddles the great divides within archaeology between professional, academic and amateur; between the local and the global; between science and humanities: in fact, the study and critique of these disciplinary divisions is a vital part of what public archaeologists do.

One of the challenges of public archaeology is its all-encompassing nature: its study draws on fields as diverse as economics, international law and film studies, while its practice ranges from grassroots community activism to high-level international diplomacy. All of this makes public archaeology difficult to pin down and define. Public archaeology exists in a tangle of overlapping definitions and interpretations, many of them the result of different national, organisational and educational traditions: public archaeologists from Greece, Argentina, the UK and Japan will often find ourselves talking at cross-purposes, even with the best of intentions.

For now, I will offer a working definition for this chapter at least, as given in the title: ‘practice and scholarship where archaeology meets the world’. This book is for people who want to better understand this point of contact between archaeology and the wider world, and for those who want to work at that interface. Within this definition of public archaeology, we can include a multitude of things: local communities campaigning to protect local heritage sites, archaeologists and producers collaborating to create television documentaries, metal detector users bringing their finds for identification and recording at local museums, archaeological heritage sites researching their visitor demographics, students studying the depiction of prehistoric women in comic books, and plenty more. The aim of this chapter is not to lay out the boundaries of the field; rather, it is to give an overview of the principles of public archaeology that underlie this book and to outline the values of studying and practising public archaeology.

Hybridity

The phrase ‘practice and scholarship’ in the brief definition above gives a hint of one of the challenges of understanding contemporary public archaeology; that is, its hybrid nature as a discipline. This hybridity and the resulting relation of public archaeology to archaeology as a whole is best understood by comparison with the sciences. The natural sciences are served by the two distinct fields of science studies and science communication. Science studies is the field of research into scientific practice in its contexts, whether those be economic, social, cultural, philosophical, legal and so on. It is a notably interdisciplinary area of scholarship drawing on elements of sociology, history, public policy, literary criticism and other fields (Sismondo 2010).

Science communication is a more practice-based field, focusing on the skills and techniques for sharing scientific knowledge and understanding as widely as possible within fields such as education and policymaking. Trained science communicators work in journalism, museums, universities and scientific industries, and employ skills as varied as technical writing and stand-up comedy (Brake and Weitkamp 2009).

Public archaeology fulfils the roles of both science studies and science communication within the wider field of archaeology, bridging critical academic scholarship and professional practice. Equally, public archaeology draws upon the literature, concepts and skills developed within these fields, as well as in analogous fields such as museum studies (Merriman 2004). This bringing together of scholarship and practice, and the blurred areas of overlap in between, makes public archaeology more complicated – and more interesting.

Origins

At this point some clarification is needed, or perhaps a confession. The model of public archaeology outlined in this introduction and in this book as a whole is neither universally agreed nor widely accepted. In fact, there are numerous narrow, overlapping and divergent definitions of the term in operation around the world, with the greatest variation being the transatlantic one between the UK and US (Fagan 2003; Jameson 2004; McDavid 2004). To be completely honest, the view of public archaeology offered in this book is based on more than two decades of work at University College London’s Institute of Archaeology and the global diaspora of graduates who have emerged from what we might call the ‘London school’ of public archaeology. This critical mass of scholarship, teaching and publishing was founded on the radical and iconoclastic work of Peter Ucko and driven by the teaching and writing of Tim Schadla-Hall, Nick Merriman and Neal Ascherson and the work of their students starting in the late 1990s (Ascherson 2000; Grima 2002; Matsuda 2004; Schadla-Hall 2006; Ucko 1987). Over the following decades this loose network has driven many of the most important developments in public archaeology, outlined in more detail in this volume, including the emerging study of digital media in public archaeology, the engagement with cultural economics, and concerns with heritage and human rights (Bonacchi 2013; Gould and Burtenshaw 2014; Hardy 2015; Richardson 2014). It is the breadth, inclusivity and global reach of this particular model of public archaeology that make it a suitable framework for this volume.

A typology

Over several years of teaching and research I found that the lack of an agreed definition of public archaeology was causing problems for students, scholars and practitioners across the field. The single greatest problem for me was the difference between the inclusive definition of public archaeology given above (practice and scholarship where archaeology meets the world) and its narrower definition within the wider field of archaeology as a synonym for public outreach by professional archaeologists. In response to these challenges I developed a simple seven-part typology presented in the form of a graphic, which I first published as an illustration in an open access paper (Bonacchi and Moshenska 2015). Entitled ‘Some Common Types of Public Archaeology’, this typology offers a good overview of the different and distinct elements of the field, detailed and expanded in Figure 1.1. While I have listed them as distinct categories there is obviously a considerable amount of overlap between them.

Figure 1.1: Some common types of public archaeology (Source: author).

Archaeologists working with the public

This first category covers a great deal of what is generally referred to as public archaeology or, in many cases, community archaeology (Marshall 2002; Moshenska and Dhanjal 2012; Thomas 2014). It refers to archaeological work conducted by professionals which includes, by design, the provision of participation opportunities for members of the public or a specific community. Many projects of this kind are run under the auspices of museums, commercial archaeology units, university departments and local government bodies, and in the UK many are funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (Bewley and Maeer 2014). While the specific forms of these events vary they tend to be time (and money) limited and aim to provide the public with experience of archaeological skills and methods, as well as insights into the heritage of their local area. Increasingly these opportunities for public involvement are moving away from excavations towards museum and archive archaeology, including outreach by archaeological archives and online crowdsourcing of archaeological data (Bevan et al. 2014). The instigation and execution of projects of this kind are almost always in the hands of the professional archaeologists, sometimes working in partnership with organisations such as schools or community groups (Dhanjal et al. 2015; Nevell 2014; Simpson and Williams 2008).

Archaeology by the public

The second category of public archaeology is what is often called amateur archaeology: work carried out (often to the highest professional standards) by local archaeology societies and amateur interest groups (Manley 1999). The work of these groups long pre-dates the emergence of professional archaeology: in the UK many local societies date back to the early nineteenth century (Wetherall 1994). Alongside fieldwork and archive-based archaeological research many amateur archaeology societies organise programmes of talks or events often linked with formal educational organisations. The work of amateur archaeologists varies considerably around the world. In many countries there are licensing systems or legal restrictions on archaeological work by non-professionals, while in some places amateurs can only take part in projects run by professionals (Duineveld et al. 2013). One of the most controversial aspects of amateur archaeology is the work of metal-detector users and metal-detecting clubs (Thomas 2012). Again laws on metal detecting vary worldwide, between outright bans and complete freedom (Dobat 2013; Rasmussen 2014). Many archaeologists do not regard metal detecting as an archaeological activity, comparing it to treasure hunting: working standards and ethics are extremely variable, but at best metal-detector users produce valuable research that is incorporated into archaeological heritage databases (Bland 2005). The demographics of amateur archaeologists are of interest to public archaeology researchers: for example, most archaeology society members are older, white and middle class, while metal-detector users are overwhelmingly male. Amateur archaeology is the original form of public archaeology but it is increasingly under threat from restrictive laws and exclusionary professional practices.

Public sector archaeology

The first book entitled Public Archaeology was published by Charles McGimsey in 1972. McGimsey’s meaning of ‘public’ refers to the state rather than to the people themselves: it can be best summarised as public sector archaeology. This broad category includes all the work of state-controlled or -funded bodies on national, regional and local scales to manage, preserve, study and communicate archaeological heritage. One of the largest such bodies is the US National Parks Service which employs a considerable number of archaeologists and heritage professionals (Jameson 2004). Over time it has become less common to refer to this work as public archaeology, with the rise of terms such as cultural resource management or heritage management (King 2012). However, the significance of incorporating these practices within a wider public archaeology is to emphasise the power and the democratic accountability of taxpayer-funded bodies with responsibilities for vast archaeological resources. They may not work directly with the public or even in the public eye, but they are (in theory at least) answerable to the public.

Archaeological education

The idea of education underlies a great deal of work in public archaeology, based on the principle that experts have a responsibility to share their knowledge with those who can appreciate and use it. Archaeological education takes place in museums and heritage sites through visitor interaction with displays and archaeological materials, and through the work of curatorial staff and museum learning professionals (Corbishley 2011; Henson 2000). In public or community archaeology projects education can take many forms: sometimes visitors will get informal talks and guided tours; in other cases they will get basic training in archaeological skills. Many projects include field schools where amateur or student archaeologists can learn excavation, recording and surveying skills (Baxter 2009). In some cases, this training resembles formal teaching and learning, but in many cases archaeological skills are shared and developed through practice, with more experienced fieldworkers advising and assisting others. This fits within a wider model of archaeological knowledge as a ‘craft’ (Faulkner 2000; Shanks and McGuire 1996; Walker and Saitta 2002). Formal learning about archaeology is a marker of public interest in the subject: most archaeology classes in schools, colleges and universities are optional, taken out of personal interest (Henson 2004). Archaeology is a popular subject of lecture tours and cruises, online courses, adult education courses and evening classes: many prominent public archaeologists have worked extensively in these fields. Public archaeology has, in Merriman’s view, long been based on the ‘deficit model’, a term taken from science communication that suggests that experts have a duty to remedy the deficit of scientific knowledge in the general public, who are viewed as empty vessels to be filled with information (Merriman 2004). Merriman’s critique and suggested alternative, a ‘multiple perspectives’ approach, has advanced the understanding of education in public archaeology but in practice a wide variety of educational philosophies are employed, tacitly or explicitly, with greater or lesser success.

Open archaeology

One of the most interesting aspects of public archaeology is the degree to which archaeology can be made open: compared to many of the sciences and other scholarly fields, many of the processes and practices of archaeology (particularly around excavation) are visible and easily comprehensible to the public (Farid 2014; Moshenska 2009b; 2013; Tilley 1989). People watching an excavation can see artefacts, bodies and structures emerging from the earth before their eyes: this is part of what makes archaeology popular and successful on television. Throughout the history of archaeology this openness has been a factor in its popularity and success. Tourists visiting excavations frustrated Sir Flinders Petrie and delighted Sir Mortimer Wheeler, while many modern excavations, particularly in urban areas, provide a view of the site through viewing platforms or, more recently, webcams (Morgan and Eve 2012; Moshenska and Schadla-Hall 2011). In many cases visitors are able to tour the excavations and talk to the archaeologists, while in some cases dedicated tour guides are used. While excavation is only one aspect of archaeology this openness is a vital element in maintaining the public profile of archaeology and its democratic nature as something (at least potentially) participative and accessible to anybody. Open archaeology is part of what sets public archaeology aside as a distinct field within the wider fields of science communication and science studies.

Popular archaeology

This could equally be described as media archaeology or popular culture archaeology: the communication of archaeological research to the public through accessible and user-friendly media, rather than the more serious and detailed educational means described above. At the same time this is probably the largest field of public archaeology in terms of economics, employment and impact on the public understanding of archaeology and the human past. Public archaeologists often forget that the public, by and large, do not want to be archaeologists and nor do they want huge amounts of detailed archaeological knowledge (Merriman 1991). In fact, most people who engage with archaeology are antiquarians: they have a general, broad interest in the past that takes in local history, genealogy and family history, some military history, and a degree of interest in, perhaps, Ancient Rome or the lands of the Bible (Holtorf 2005, 2007). This hulking majority engage with antiquity through television documentaries such as